9 ms·

Any boardgame that involves eliminating players from it is a non-starter for me.

by larrik 7y ago

chungy 7y ago
How do you win, then?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- saghm 7y ago
  In many board games, either a win condition is reached for one player that ends the game for everyone at once, or some sort of scoring system is used to determine the winner after the gameplay ends.
- cowbellemoo 7y ago
  Many games go until a win condition is reached without eliminating other players in the meantime.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Look up Pandemic or Forbidden Island for examples of cooperative games that put players against the game instead of each other.
  - Joeri 7y ago
    Also, bank attack: https://www.johnadams.co.uk/product/bank-attack/ https://www.johnadams.co.uk/product/bank-attack/
  - jbay808 7y ago
    An issue with games like Pandemic is that a more experienced or dominant player can tend to take charge of the whole team, with everyone else following their orders instead of autonomously making their own decisions. Especially if following the experienced player's advice really does maximize the chance of winning, it basically becomes a single-player game with spectators who help move the pieces around. I think adding in secret information or hidden objectives can help prevent this.
    - captn3m0 7y ago
      The fancier term for this is "The Quarterback" problem. It happens at every Pandemic game, but there are ways around it. Even something as simple as a total-game-timer helps. Another rule that helps is enforcing the "consent" part of the rules (for 2-player interactions, including the one where you're allowed to move other players), and ensuring autonomy is respected in the game, even if its a sub-optimal move. +1 to secret information/hidden objectives. I guess Pandemic:Legacy uses that?
      - Spellman 7y ago
        Alternatively, hidden traitor (Shadows over Camelot, Dead of Winter, Battlestar Galactica)! Then you can't trust the "Quarterback" because they could be LYING!!! Other games solve this via real-time constraints. Thinking Escape from the Cursed Temple and Space Alert. There's not enough time for on person to coordinate everyone, so everyone needs to communicate and take initiative.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  1) One or more game-ending game states which may or may not also be win conditions for the person causing them, without any possibility for a player to be "out" before that. 2) Set duration (usually in rounds played). Usually wins determined, in either case, either by "you were the first to do X so you win" or a scored resolution. It's usually possible to be de facto eliminated in these games (anyone who's played much Catan has been there, to pick a familiar example) but the best of them keep that from happening until late in the game. Quite a few, frankly, do not do a good job of that but do make it hard to tell who's winning so at least you don't know you've effectively already lost by the halfway point of the game. [EDIT] for an easy example many might be familiar with: look at most trick-taking card games, like Spades, Hearts, or Bridge. No elimination (unlike, say, poker), but you still get a winner or winning partnership at the end.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  "First to 10 points wins". "Dominion", "Settlers of Catan", "Splendor" are great games of this nature. ------ Acquire has "When all companies are monopolies (11 tiles or larger) or when one company is of size 42, the game is over". So the game is on an implicit clock. All players keep playing until the end condition.
  - TimPC 7y ago
    Settlers of Catan is a deeply flawed game. It's far better than monopoly but is definitely too dice-heavy and kingmaker oriented. Dominion is in a lot of ways among the worst games in the genre it created as most of the variants that followed added more interesting mechanics and tradeoffs. It should get a lot of credit for being original so I guess I'm fine with calling it a great game. Splendor is a classic.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      I feel like there are better games than Catan these days, but it was great when people were only thinking about relatively bad games like Monopoly or Risk as their Friday night hangout game.
      - TimPC 7y ago
        Agree with that. I just think it's sad that the state of the art for gaming in non-specialist stores is Catan and Ticket to Ride. If places like Indigo were a bit more ambitious in their title selection many people would be playing much better games.
    - mcv 7y ago
      I honestly haven't seen any pure deckbuilding game that's as good as Dominion. It works very well in Quest for El Dorado, but that's not pure deckbuilding (great game, though). I also disagree that Catan is deeply flawed. Of course no game is perfect, but Catan does what it does very well. Kingmaking can be an issue in any multiplayer game with any sort of interaction, but in Catan, it's pretty clear how to get points. If people are throwing the game just to spite someone, then you just need to play with better people. Dice are absolutely central to the game, but that's not necessarily bad. Luck being a factor does not make a game deeply flawed. If you prefer chess, you just need to play chess instead.
- hnal943 7y ago
  first past the post and score are both good options.
shaneprrlt 7y ago
There's some intense relationship-ending games of Sorry in your past, I can sense it.
- larrik 7y ago
  lol, more like my kids getting eliminated and then causing trouble.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Kids love causing trouble with that Pop-O-Matic! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfznucMwNuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfznucMwNuU
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Eunice explains how to use the little bell to Ma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNG1DkS_f4g&t=6m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNG1DkS_f4g&t=6m38s
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
From a social fun aspect, that's a good way to look at it. From the Landlord's Game/Monopoly original intent, eliminating a player basically means they are homeless and destitute, making the educational point rather clear. That said, cooperative games are a nicer way to spend an evening with friends.
- praptak 7y ago
  Actually, the axed "Prosperity" set of rules for the original game was cooperative.
dragontamer 7y ago
Try Acquire instead. 1. All players play to the end. 2. Implicit alliances are setup similar to the stock market. If the "Saxon" company does better, ALL players who own Saxon benefit. 3. Implicit rivalries are setup similar to the stock market. If "Saxon" company is the strongest in the game, the players you have to worry about are the fellow "Saxon" shareholders. Especially the intense fight over who is majority shareholder (and therefore gets the majority bonus at endgame) 4. It is easier to screw opponents over by buying the last share (or holding tiles they need), rather than win the game outright. Implicitly, Acquire relies upon playing well in a social aspect. Generally speaking, scratch the back of weaker players (ex: If a weaker player a minority shareholder in "Worldwide" company, grant them the majority), they might return the favor (ex: the weaker play may make an acquisition play, benefiting all shareholders of "Worldwide". Its better to be minority in "Worldwide" through an acquisition than to be majority in Worldwide but the company doesn't go anywhere). Note: All companies only have 25 shares. Once the 25 shares are sold, there are no more. You can only purchase 3 shares per turn (maximum, across all companies), meaning the fight for "majority shareholder" is quite intense. You can win vs players with more money by being the first one to buy 13 shares, as an example. 5. You can't sell until a company is acquired. Reaching monopoly status (11-tiles large) means that a company CANNOT be acquired, which means your wealth is now trapped in the monopoly, unable to influence other companies aside from acquiring them. The wealth counts for endgame of course, but small companies grow faster, so its usually better to leave your wealth in the small 1 to 3-tile companies instead. I have lost games because my wealth was trapped in monopolies before, despite being majority shareholder in the largest endgame companies. ------------ Whenever my friends want to play Monopoly, I show them Acquire instead. Its strictly superior. Better tactics, better social interactions, better interactivity for "losing" players (they stay in the game, and often make the final acquisition plays that determine the winner). "Comeback victories" aren't really a thing, due to the exponential growth of money in acquire. If you fall behind, you fall behind exponentially. But its still nice that everyone still has something to do at the board throughout the game, especially compared to Monopoly. At a minimum, your tiles determine who you can help or hurt, while your shares you own form your rivalries and alliances. You're never "alone" per se, someone else always tries to become at least "minority" shareholder in those other companies with you. So you can rely upon your alliances to advance in the late stages of the game, even if you're behind. There's still a degree in fun trying to maximize your earnings, even in a losing position IMO.
karatestomp 7y ago
They're fine if they're short. I'd prefer elimination to longer games where a couple clear leaders after lucky first couple rounds are the only ones who can plausibly win, which I've also seen in a few enlightened modern games. Best case for those games is you spend the remaining 80-90% of the game playing spoiler or kingmaker, which is kinda shitty, or in the worst case the game's designed such that you can't do much about it, so you're going through the motions to see if you can manage 3rd place out of 5 (or whatever) for the rest of the game. Monopoly's pretty short if you play by the rules and everyone knows how to play and isn't screwing around. I don't really like it, but I don't think elimination is the main problem. It's not like world-conquest risk where it typically drags on forever, well after the first player elimination. [EDIT] economy-building games with low interaction between players and a significant randomness component seem especially prone to "well that player happened to go first and got the only good thing available to buy this round so has its benefit the rest of the game, and will proceed to stomp everyone else, obviously". There's a particular cards-based game with an age-of-sail trading vessel theme I've played several times that's my (least) favorite example of this: I've won, I've lost, both are fucking boring because you spend most of the game knowing where you're going to place and you can't even rage-harm other players out of boredom. Drawing a blank on the name. Anyway, I'd much rather be eliminated in a game like that.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  "Dead man walking" is one of the worst feelings ever. Settlers of Catan has a few "dead man walking" situations, but they're somewhat rare.... Especially because the optimal strategy in Catan is to trade with players weaker than you. So all "dead men walking" get boosted by the stronger players. The 1st place player never wants to trade with the 2nd place player, or vice versa. "Ticket to Ride" has more dead-man walking situations, where you know you've messed up but nothing can be done until the game is over. And because the game is elimination free, you feel like a jerk to leave before the game is over. --------------- The goal is to find a game that strikes the balance. Keep everyone playing, but make everyone feel like their contributions (even if they're behind) are noteworthy. Carcassonne is probably the best.
  - 7y ago
captn3m0 7y ago
+1. I once did a fun presentation on why Monopoly sucks. This was the top issue and the main reason why I don't play it anymore. People play games to have fun. Eliminating them from a game is the worst thing you can do as a game designer, because its the only guaranteed way of them not having fun. This is the same issue that Mafia/Werewolf suffers from. There's a nice blog post from the designer of Guillotine[1], where he mentions how one of the cards in the game (which stops players from playing any action cards) was "the biggest mistake I ever made as a game designer in my life". Can't find the presentation anymore, but the other issues in Monopoly: - Runaway leader (leading players get luckier) - Starting few rolls can end up deciding too much of the game. - Chances of landing in various properties is skewed enough to be a game-breaker (Primarily Transports and Orange) if not everyone is aware of it. - Too much dependence on luck, overall. [1]: https://danielsolisblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/one-thing-to-avoid-in-game-design.html https://danielsolisblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/one-thing-to-av...
eitland 7y ago
So no Risk and no Chess for you?
- Spellman 7y ago
  No OP, but I assume Risk is out. But Chess is OK because game ends when one player is eliminated. Therefore, no lingering players eliminated and standing on the sidelines while the rest play.

Any boardgame that involves eliminating players from it is a non-starter for me.

by larrik 7y ago

Any boardgame that involves eliminating players from it is a non-starter for me.

chungy 7y ago

How do you win, then?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
saghm 7y ago
In many board games, either a win condition is reached for one player that ends the game for everyone at once, or some sort of scoring system is used to determine the winner after the gameplay ends.
cowbellemoo 7y ago
Many games go until a win condition is reached without eliminating other players in the meantime.
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Look up Pandemic or Forbidden Island for examples of cooperative games that put players against the game instead of each other.
- Joeri 7y ago
  Also, bank attack: https://www.johnadams.co.uk/product/bank-attack/ https://www.johnadams.co.uk/product/bank-attack/
- jbay808 7y ago
  An issue with games like Pandemic is that a more experienced or dominant player can tend to take charge of the whole team, with everyone else following their orders instead of autonomously making their own decisions. Especially if following the experienced player's advice really does maximize the chance of winning, it basically becomes a single-player game with spectators who help move the pieces around. I think adding in secret information or hidden objectives can help prevent this.
  - captn3m0 7y ago
    The fancier term for this is "The Quarterback" problem. It happens at every Pandemic game, but there are ways around it. Even something as simple as a total-game-timer helps. Another rule that helps is enforcing the "consent" part of the rules (for 2-player interactions, including the one where you're allowed to move other players), and ensuring autonomy is respected in the game, even if its a sub-optimal move. +1 to secret information/hidden objectives. I guess Pandemic:Legacy uses that?
    - Spellman 7y ago
      Alternatively, hidden traitor (Shadows over Camelot, Dead of Winter, Battlestar Galactica)! Then you can't trust the "Quarterback" because they could be LYING!!! Other games solve this via real-time constraints. Thinking Escape from the Cursed Temple and Space Alert. There's not enough time for on person to coordinate everyone, so everyone needs to communicate and take initiative.
karatestomp 7y ago
1) One or more game-ending game states which may or may not also be win conditions for the person causing them, without any possibility for a player to be "out" before that. 2) Set duration (usually in rounds played). Usually wins determined, in either case, either by "you were the first to do X so you win" or a scored resolution. It's usually possible to be de facto eliminated in these games (anyone who's played much Catan has been there, to pick a familiar example) but the best of them keep that from happening until late in the game. Quite a few, frankly, do not do a good job of that but do make it hard to tell who's winning so at least you don't know you've effectively already lost by the halfway point of the game. [EDIT] for an easy example many might be familiar with: look at most trick-taking card games, like Spades, Hearts, or Bridge. No elimination (unlike, say, poker), but you still get a winner or winning partnership at the end.
dragontamer 7y ago
"First to 10 points wins". "Dominion", "Settlers of Catan", "Splendor" are great games of this nature. ------ Acquire has "When all companies are monopolies (11 tiles or larger) or when one company is of size 42, the game is over". So the game is on an implicit clock. All players keep playing until the end condition.
- TimPC 7y ago
  Settlers of Catan is a deeply flawed game. It's far better than monopoly but is definitely too dice-heavy and kingmaker oriented. Dominion is in a lot of ways among the worst games in the genre it created as most of the variants that followed added more interesting mechanics and tradeoffs. It should get a lot of credit for being original so I guess I'm fine with calling it a great game. Splendor is a classic.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    I feel like there are better games than Catan these days, but it was great when people were only thinking about relatively bad games like Monopoly or Risk as their Friday night hangout game.
    - TimPC 7y ago
      Agree with that. I just think it's sad that the state of the art for gaming in non-specialist stores is Catan and Ticket to Ride. If places like Indigo were a bit more ambitious in their title selection many people would be playing much better games.
  - mcv 7y ago
    I honestly haven't seen any pure deckbuilding game that's as good as Dominion. It works very well in Quest for El Dorado, but that's not pure deckbuilding (great game, though). I also disagree that Catan is deeply flawed. Of course no game is perfect, but Catan does what it does very well. Kingmaking can be an issue in any multiplayer game with any sort of interaction, but in Catan, it's pretty clear how to get points. If people are throwing the game just to spite someone, then you just need to play with better people. Dice are absolutely central to the game, but that's not necessarily bad. Luck being a factor does not make a game deeply flawed. If you prefer chess, you just need to play chess instead.
hnal943 7y ago
first past the post and score are both good options.

shaneprrlt 7y ago

There's some intense relationship-ending games of Sorry in your past, I can sense it.

larrik 7y ago
lol, more like my kids getting eliminated and then causing trouble.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Kids love causing trouble with that Pop-O-Matic! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfznucMwNuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfznucMwNuU
DonHopkins 7y ago
Eunice explains how to use the little bell to Ma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNG1DkS_f4g&t=6m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNG1DkS_f4g&t=6m38s

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

From a social fun aspect, that's a good way to look at it. From the Landlord's Game/Monopoly original intent, eliminating a player basically means they are homeless and destitute, making the educational point rather clear. That said, cooperative games are a nicer way to spend an evening with friends.

praptak 7y ago
Actually, the axed "Prosperity" set of rules for the original game was cooperative.

dragontamer 7y ago

Try Acquire instead. 1. All players play to the end. 2. Implicit alliances are setup similar to the stock market. If the "Saxon" company does better, ALL players who own Saxon benefit. 3. Implicit rivalries are setup similar to the stock market. If "Saxon" company is the strongest in the game, the players you have to worry about are the fellow "Saxon" shareholders. Especially the intense fight over who is majority shareholder (and therefore gets the majority bonus at endgame) 4. It is easier to screw opponents over by buying the last share (or holding tiles they need), rather than win the game outright. Implicitly, Acquire relies upon playing well in a social aspect. Generally speaking, scratch the back of weaker players (ex: If a weaker player a minority shareholder in "Worldwide" company, grant them the majority), they might return the favor (ex: the weaker play may make an acquisition play, benefiting all shareholders of "Worldwide". Its better to be minority in "Worldwide" through an acquisition than to be majority in Worldwide but the company doesn't go anywhere). Note: All companies only have 25 shares. Once the 25 shares are sold, there are no more. You can only purchase 3 shares per turn (maximum, across all companies), meaning the fight for "majority shareholder" is quite intense. You can win vs players with more money by being the first one to buy 13 shares, as an example. 5. You can't sell until a company is acquired. Reaching monopoly status (11-tiles large) means that a company CANNOT be acquired, which means your wealth is now trapped in the monopoly, unable to influence other companies aside from acquiring them. The wealth counts for endgame of course, but small companies grow faster, so its usually better to leave your wealth in the small 1 to 3-tile companies instead. I have lost games because my wealth was trapped in monopolies before, despite being majority shareholder in the largest endgame companies. ------------ Whenever my friends want to play Monopoly, I show them Acquire instead. Its strictly superior. Better tactics, better social interactions, better interactivity for "losing" players (they stay in the game, and often make the final acquisition plays that determine the winner). "Comeback victories" aren't really a thing, due to the exponential growth of money in acquire. If you fall behind, you fall behind exponentially. But its still nice that everyone still has something to do at the board throughout the game, especially compared to Monopoly. At a minimum, your tiles determine who you can help or hurt, while your shares you own form your rivalries and alliances. You're never "alone" per se, someone else always tries to become at least "minority" shareholder in those other companies with you. So you can rely upon your alliances to advance in the late stages of the game, even if you're behind. There's still a degree in fun trying to maximize your earnings, even in a losing position IMO.

karatestomp 7y ago

They're fine if they're short. I'd prefer elimination to longer games where a couple clear leaders after lucky first couple rounds are the only ones who can plausibly win, which I've also seen in a few enlightened modern games. Best case for those games is you spend the remaining 80-90% of the game playing spoiler or kingmaker, which is kinda shitty, or in the worst case the game's designed such that you can't do much about it, so you're going through the motions to see if you can manage 3rd place out of 5 (or whatever) for the rest of the game. Monopoly's pretty short if you play by the rules and everyone knows how to play and isn't screwing around. I don't really like it, but I don't think elimination is the main problem. It's not like world-conquest risk where it typically drags on forever, well after the first player elimination. [EDIT] economy-building games with low interaction between players and a significant randomness component seem especially prone to "well that player happened to go first and got the only good thing available to buy this round so has its benefit the rest of the game, and will proceed to stomp everyone else, obviously". There's a particular cards-based game with an age-of-sail trading vessel theme I've played several times that's my (least) favorite example of this: I've won, I've lost, both are fucking boring because you spend most of the game knowing where you're going to place and you can't even rage-harm other players out of boredom. Drawing a blank on the name. Anyway, I'd much rather be eliminated in a game like that.

dragontamer 7y ago
"Dead man walking" is one of the worst feelings ever. Settlers of Catan has a few "dead man walking" situations, but they're somewhat rare.... Especially because the optimal strategy in Catan is to trade with players weaker than you. So all "dead men walking" get boosted by the stronger players. The 1st place player never wants to trade with the 2nd place player, or vice versa. "Ticket to Ride" has more dead-man walking situations, where you know you've messed up but nothing can be done until the game is over. And because the game is elimination free, you feel like a jerk to leave before the game is over. --------------- The goal is to find a game that strikes the balance. Keep everyone playing, but make everyone feel like their contributions (even if they're behind) are noteworthy. Carcassonne is probably the best.
- 7y ago

captn3m0 7y ago

+1. I once did a fun presentation on why Monopoly sucks. This was the top issue and the main reason why I don't play it anymore. People play games to have fun. Eliminating them from a game is the worst thing you can do as a game designer, because its the only guaranteed way of them not having fun. This is the same issue that Mafia/Werewolf suffers from. There's a nice blog post from the designer of Guillotine[1], where he mentions how one of the cards in the game (which stops players from playing any action cards) was "the biggest mistake I ever made as a game designer in my life". Can't find the presentation anymore, but the other issues in Monopoly: - Runaway leader (leading players get luckier) - Starting few rolls can end up deciding too much of the game. - Chances of landing in various properties is skewed enough to be a game-breaker (Primarily Transports and Orange) if not everyone is aware of it. - Too much dependence on luck, overall. [1]: https://danielsolisblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/one-thing-to-avoid-in-game-design.html https://danielsolisblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/one-thing-to-av...

eitland 7y ago

So no Risk and no Chess for you?

Spellman 7y ago
No OP, but I assume Risk is out. But Chess is OK because game ends when one player is eliminated. Therefore, no lingering players eliminated and standing on the sidelines while the rest play.